Talk:Ruddigore

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deleted Passage

A recent editor deleted this passage:

As with most Gilbert and Sullivan works, Ruddigore is not as straightforward as it first appears. It uses the form of a comedy – melodrama – to question what the meaning of Good and Evil. The Good characters are all good in rather unpleasant ways or for bad reasons, whereas the Bad Baronet is evil for relatively noble reasons. For instance he uses the results of his evil deeds to support charitable institutions. The plot summary should be read with these thoughts in mind.

There are some sensible ideas in this paragraph, but awkwardly expressed. I assume the deleting editor was concerned that it wasn't backed up by any citable source. It was simply some prior contributor's personal view of what Ruddigore is about. Marc Shepherd 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact that was (and is) my view of the opera. I contributed it before the current No Original Research policy was in place. It is reasonable to remove it since I doubt that any citations can be found for it. Nevertheless I believe that there is some truth in it, however awkwardly expressed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all: I added some stuff to the introduction that, I think, gives some of the flavor of what the contributor was getting at. See what you think. Sam Silvers (April 26)

Looks fine to me, Sam. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line assignments for the named ghosts

Thought I'd add a clarification to that odd list of ghosts. I'm not quite sure if it's quite right yet, or if it comes off a bit dismissive, which, as you can imagine, is not my intent since this is, after all, my favourite Gilbert and Sullivan opera. See what you think. Adam Cuerden 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed find it a bit dismissive, and reworded it a bit. Marc Shepherd 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. One thing that's a bit odd: All eight named ghosts were originally assigned a cast member, as seen here: http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/html/rudd_cast.html , but it's difficult to see how the mass marrying off to ghosts would work with a mere 8 men to the standard chorus of 20, and only 5 ghosts are given business in the play, 6 if you count the bishop. Any idea what's going on?

The four ghosts each speak twice. Maybe originaly each of those eight little lines was given to a different cast member? --Ssilvers 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the earlier commenter (who didn't sign his post) thought was so odd. The named ghosts weren't the full chorus; they were merely the ones who had individual spoken lines. Gilbert assigned the lines during rehearsal (just as directors do today), but in his libretto he didn't feel compelled to specify which ghost would say each line. Marc Shepherd 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas I. Just that the count only ever reaches four shosts, plus the bishop, and many of the numbered ghosts have catch phrases. My best guess would be that the original production only had eight ghosts, but that doesn't make very much sense, if you're going to marry the maidens off to the ghosts... Ah, well. Adam Cuerden 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! We have a canny researcher! Adam Cuerden 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising the issue. It is well documented how many choristers were at the Savoy. It was about 20 of each. I have no idea why Gilbert named only eight of them in the d.p., and then assigned the dialogue to "1st ghost" thru "4th ghost." But there are little inconsistencies like this scattered throughout Gilbert's libretti. Gilbert and Sullivan fans have had 125 years, more or less, to to puzzle over these things. Gilbert was just trying to put a show onstage.

I've revised the main article to reflect the fact that Gilbert did indeed assign each of the named ghosts at least one line of dialogue, thus contravening his own captions of "1st" thru "4th". I think it is safe to assume that when Gilbert wrote the libretto, he didn't particularly care who the speakers would be. In his own mind, "1st" thru "4th" meant, "I'll figure it out later." That was the luxury he had in his dual roles of both author and director. Marc Shepherd 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... just to check, doesn't the pre-revision libretto (Ruddygore, as opposed to Ruddigore) have additional lines for the ghosts? Adam Cuerden 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does. My comment referred to the final version of the text. I don't believe any citable source has identified how those other lines would have been allocated had they not been cut. Marc Shepherd 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Poking around on the G&S archive gives us Ian Bond's version, (with original ending complete with "Fallacy somewhere!" running gag applied to Rupert.) - How rigorous is Ian's work, or is it just a reconstruction? Adam Cuerden 03:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a section describing the various versions of Ruddigore, which mentions that the ghost dialogue scene was originally longer. Feel free to add to it if you think something significant has been left out, but it seems to me to cover the subject adequately. I haven't read Ian Bond's archive libretto lately, but he is usually reliable. Marc Shepherd 13:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weel, I've revised it a bit: You can't say original production when referring to the Oxford press edition if you mean the revised act II. However, it's now perhaps a bit long. Perhaps we should shrink the text and demote it to footnote status? Adam Cuerden 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-war on "Away, remorse!"

A recent edit settled on this footnote:

This recitative was originally followed by the song, "For thirty-five years I've been sober and wary". Gilbert and Sullivan were dissatisfied with this and wrote a new patter song to follow the recit: "Henceforth all the crimes that I find in the Times". The latter is published in more of the extant scores, and is probably more often heard, although recent recordings and productions have tended to bring back the original version. Many productions cut the recit. and song completely. See Versions.

To a considerable extent, this just duplicates, or states in a different way, what is already stated in the Versions section. If the Versions section is inadequate, please update that. I have to agree with Adam that, on the whole, the recitative and song (either version of it) is seldom performed. Until the Oxford edition came out, the song was not even in the Chappell vocal score, and I don't believe it came with the standard D'Oyly Carte rental parts. So it's safe to say that, in the UK at least, the song was hardly ever performed until recent times. Marc Shepherd 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth clarifying that "Away, remorse!" is, in fact, two different songs. However, a better way of doing it occurs to me! Adam Cuerden 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song list

Have added in significant parts of the Act I finale, in line with procedure hit upon for H.M.S. Pinafore (people were having trouble finding some of the more famous songs from it in the list of songs, so it was agreed to list all significant parts. Not quite so important with Ruddigore, which only has the one big ensemble piece not broken into smaller numbers, but I'm trying to do it for consistancy over all 14 operas. Adam Cuerden 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should say Finale Act I. --Ssilvers 18:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

The revisions section is, in my opinion, somewhat clunky and inefficient, since instead of, for instance, dealing with the changes from Ruddygore to Ruddigore, it instead lists everything that would be changed from the first night, then GOES BACK AND LISTS IT ALL AGAIN, saying what changed. It alright if I poke about with it to make it flow better? The Toye version probably needs its own section, but we only need two sections, not three bulleted lists. Adam Cuerden 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]